ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Clinical Utility of 4C Mortality Scores among Japanese COVID-19 Patients: A Multicenter Study.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic models in COVID-19 infection that predict severity: a systematic review.European journal of epidemiology · 2023Pooled it
- Predictive Value of the CURB-65, MuLBSTA, Pneumonia Severity Index Scores and Laboratory Parameters for In-Hospital Mortality in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus and COVID-19 Infection.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Predictability of Severity Scores in Patients over 70 Years Old with COVID-19 Infection: Results from a Single-Center Retrospective Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Predictive accuracy of 4C Mortality Score and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation scores for mortality in COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care unit.World journal of critical care medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- External validation of the ISARIC 4C Mortality Score to predict in-hospital mortality among patients with COVID-19 in a Canadian intensive care unit: a single-centre historical cohort study.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2023Article
- Comparison of prognostic scores for inpatients with COVID-19: a retrospective monocentric cohort study.BMJ open respiratory research · 2022Article
- Special Issue "Pulmonary and Critical Care Practice in the Pandemic of COVID-19".Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Physiologic Scoring Systems in Predicting the COVID-19 Patients' one-month Mortality; a Prognostic Accuracy Study.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe analyzed data from COVID-19 patients in Japan to assess the utility of the 4C mortality score as compared with conventional scorings.
methodsIn this multicenter study, COVID-19 patients hospitalized between March 2020 and June 2021, over 16 years old, were recruited. The superiority for correctly predicting mortality and severity by applying the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was compared. A Cox regression model was used to compare the length of hospitalization for each risk group of 4C mortality score.
resultsAmong 206 patients, 21 patients died. The area under the curve (AUC) (95% confidential interval (CI)) of the ROC curve for mortality and severity, respectively, of 4C mortality scores (0.84 (95% CI 0.76-0.92) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.80-0.91)) were higher than those of qSOFA (0.66 (95% CI 0.53-0.78) and 0.67 (95% CI 0.59-0.75)), SOFA (0.70 (95% CI 0.55-0.84) and 0.81 (95% CI 0.74-0.89)), A-DROP (0.78 (95% CI 0.69-0.88) and 0.81 (95% CI 0.74-0.88)), and CURB-65 (0.82 (95% CI 0.74-0.90) and 0.82 (95% CI 0.76-0.88)). For length of hospitalization among survivors, the intermediate- and high- or very high-risk groups had significantly lower hazard ratios, i.e., 0.48 (95% CI 0.30-0.76)) and 0.23 (95% CI 0.13-0.43) for discharge.
conclusionsThe 4C mortality score is better for estimating mortality and severity in COVID-19 Japanese patients than other scoring systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.